PROCESSIONAL  SINGING  BY  SURPLICED  CHOIRS 


UNAUTHORIZED  INNOVATION 


IN  THE 


public  SKorsjjip  of  tljc  Protestant  episcopal  Cljurcj) 


BEING  A  PART  OF 


BISHOP  McILVAINE’S  ADDRESS 


TO  THE 


CONVENTION  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  OHIO, 

JTTZfcTIE  3,  18S8, 


TOGETHER  WITH  THE  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  CANONS  ON  THE 

SAME  SUBJECT. 


COLUMBUS,  O: 

NEVINS  &  MYERS,  PRINTERS. 

1868. 


- 


C° 


¥ 


PROCESSIONAL  AND  SURPLICED  CHOIRS. 


[Bishop  McIlvaine,  in  his  Address  to  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  Ohio, 
held  in  Trinity  Church,  Newark,  June  3d,  1868,  after  other  matters,  said,  as 
follows :  ] 

A  case  has  occurred,  in  a  congregation  of  the  Diocese,  of  what  I 
regard  as  unlawful  innovation  on  our  established  worship,  by  the 
introduction  of  a  ceremonial  which  has  never  appeared  in  this 
Diocese  before.  It  seemed  my  duty  to  address  to  the  Eector,  and 
through  him  to  the  Vestry,  a  communication  on  the  subject,  con¬ 
taining  my  views  of  the  matter,  under  the  laws  and  usages  of  our 
Church.  I  am  happy  and  thankful  to  say  that,  so  far  as  I  know, 
it  is  the  first  instance  in  this  Diocese  of  any  addition  to  the 
appointed  and  customary  order  of  our  Morning  and  Evening 
Prayer  which  has  seemed  to  need  any  interference  on  my  part. 
But  in  the  present  remarkable  fondness  of  a  class  of  minds  in  our 
General  Church  for  ritualistic  novelties,  there  is  no  knowing  what 
a  seed  of  this  sort,  unheeded,  may  speedily  grow  to.  I  think  it 
well,  therefore,  to  state  to  this  Convention,  and  through  it  to  the 
whole  Diocese,  the  ground  I  have  taken,  and  my  reasons  therefor, 
premising,  however,  that,  as  I  have  no  desire  to  draw  attention  to  the 
particular  parish  referred  to,  I  shall  treat  the  subject  in  as  much  ab¬ 
straction  therefrom  as  possible.  Indeed,  I  should  have  preferred  to 
avoid  even  this  very  general  reference,  had  it  not  been  necessary  as 
a  reason  for  introducing  to  the  Convention  what  I  am  going  to  say ; 
and  I  wish  very  emphatically  to  forbid,  at  the  outset,  the  thought 
that,  in  any  portion  of  what  I  shall  say,  any  reflection  is  intended 
upon  the  motives  or  intentions  of  those  most  nearly  concerned  in 
originating  the  case  referred  to.  It  is  not  to  arraign  them  before 
the  Convention  that  I  speak  of  it.  What  may  be  very  innocent 
on  the  part  of  those  who  institute  it,  may  be  very  injurious  and 
quite  unlawful  in  itself  or  its  consequences. 

What  I  am  going  to  read  is  simply  an  enlargement  of  the  views 
contained  in  the  paper  sent  to  the  Eector.  Having  obtained  from 
him  an  admission  of  the  correctness  of  the  information  on  which  I 
proceeded,  the  statement  of  the  practice  is  as  follows :  At  the 
opening  of  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer,  a  jn'ocession,  consisting 
of  some  fifteen  boys  and  some  men,  all  vested  in  surplices,  is 
formed,  which,  entering  the  Church  at  the  front  door,  proceeds, 
singing  as  it  advances,  up  the  middle  aisle,  until  it  reaches  the 
seats  or  stalls  (so  called)  before  the  chancel,  where  the  members 
of  the  procession  find  their  appointed  seats — the  congregation  being 
expected  to  stand  until  those  choristers  are  seated,  when  the  Eec¬ 
tor  begins  the  Sentences  at  the  commencement  of  the  Morning  or 


•p  35335 


4 


Evening  Prayer,  as  the  case  may  be.  This  practice  has  been 
continued,  I  believe,  some  months  in  the  parish  referred  to.  It 
presents  itself  to  my  notice  under  three  aspects: 

First, — The  procession. 

Secondly. —  The  procession  entering  tlxe  Church  and  proceeding  up  the 
aisle  with  singing. 

Thirdly. — The  members  of  the  procession  rested  in  surplices. 

I  take  these  in  the  order  given. 

1.  The  procession.  If  this  were  unconnected  with  the  singing 
and  the  surplice,  a  mere  device  for  better  order,  the  choristers 
silently  entering  together  for  the  prevention  of  such  confusion  as 
might  attend  their  coming  in  at  different  times,  there  would  be  no 
exception  taken.  But  such  is  not  the  character  of  the  procession. 
I  pass,  therefore,  to  the  second  particular  noted. 

2.  The  procession,  with  singing.  I  do  not  inquire  whether  any 

thing  is  sung  besides  the  Psalms  and  Hymns  set  forth  in  the  Prayer 
Book,  and  which,  according  to  the  Rubric  prefixed  to  the  Psalms 
in  Metre,  u  are  allowed  to  be  sung  before  and  after  Morning  and  Even¬ 
ing  Prayer ,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Minister .”  Were  such  the  case, 
the  ground  of  objection  to  the  whole  proceeding  as  unlawful  would 
be  much  strengthened.  But  I  will  take  it  for  granted,  and  have 
since  learned,  that  nothing  else  is  used  in  that  processional  singing. 
Now,  that  practice  must  be  regarded  as  intended  either  as  an  act 
of  worship ,  or  as  one  of  mere  musical  ceremony  for  display  or  entertain¬ 
ment.  Shall  we  suppose  the  latter  h  I  am  unwilling  to  impute  a 
want  of  reverence  and  propriety  which,  until  better  informed,  I 
cannot  believe.  Then  we  must  take  the  other  supposition  (which  I 
have  been  informed  is  correct),  that  it  is  an  act  of  ivorship.  It  is 
thus  public  worship ,  and  I  learn  is  so  understood  ;  the  congrega¬ 
tion  being  expected  to  rise  at  the  entrance  of  the  procession,  to 
stand  till  the  singing  is  terminated,  and  to  take  part  therein.  But 
the  Rubric  says  the  morning  and  evening  worship  of  the  congre¬ 
gation  shall  begin  in  quite  another  mode  :  “  The  Minister  (it  says) 

shall  begin  the  morning  (or  Evening)  Prayer  (as  the  case  may  be)  by 
reading  one  or  more  of  the  folloicing  Sentences There  is  no  credible 
meaning  in  this  but  that  when  the  congregation  have  assembled 
for  the  regular  appointed  public  worship  of  the  morning  and  even¬ 
ing,  the  first  opening  of  such  worship  shall  be  such  reading,  and 
before  that  beginning  no  act  of  common  worship  shall  be  introduced. 
To  this,  in  the  English  Prayer  Book  there  is  no  exception.  Hence, 
in  the  valuable  and  learned  “Notes,  Legal  and  Historical,  on  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  by  Archibald  John  Stephens,  Barrister 
at  Law,”  published  by  the  Ecclesiastical  History  Society,  we  read 
under  the  above  Rubric  :  “  It  is  clear,  from  this  Rubric,  that  the 

Sentences  must  begin  the  Morning  Prayer,  and  that  they  can  not  be 
preceded  by  any  other  words."  And  in  the  recent  work  of  the  Rev. 
R.  P.  Blakeney,  LL.D.,  on  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  “  in  its 
History  and  Interpretation,  with  special  reference  to  existing  con¬ 
troversies,”  we  read,  under  the  same  Rubric,  that  “  the  practice  of 
commencing  service  with  a  procession  and  chanting  is  unauthor¬ 
ized.  The  Rubric  is  express.  To  begin  the  service  processionally 


5 


is  unlawful.  It  is  true  that  Queen  Elizabeth  legalized  the  singing 
of  a  hymn  at  the  openiug  and  closing  of  the  services,  but  she  ex¬ 
pressly  forbade  processions .” 

What  Queen  Elizabeth  legalized,  though  not  now  lawful,  so  far 
as  I  am  informed,  in  the  Church  of  England,  is  lawful  in  our 
Church.  In  our  Prayer  Book  one  exception  is  provided  to  the  gen¬ 
eral  rule  of  beginning  the  service  with  the  Sentences.  In  the 
Bubric  prefixed  to  the  Metrical  Psalms,  permission  is  given  to  in¬ 
troduce  an  act  of  public  worship  before  such  reading.  But  it  is 
confined  to  the  singing  of  one  of  the  Psalms  in  Metre ,  or  one  of 
the  Hymns ,  as  set  forth  in  the  Prayer  Booh ,  “at  the  discretion  of  the 
Minister ;  ”  that  is,  it  is  left  to  the  Minister  to  say  whether  the 
service  shall  begin  in  that  way  or  not ;  and  if  it  does,  to  select 
whether  it  shall  be  in  the  singing  of  a  Psalm  or  a  Hymn,  as  set 
forth  in  the  Prayer  Book.  This  being  the  only  exception  provided 
to  the  general  rule  of  beginning  our  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer 
with  the  reading  of  one  or  more  of  the  Sentences,  it  follows  that 
any  other  beginning  is  unlawful. 

But  I  am  assured  that  in  the  practice  under  consideration  noth¬ 
ing  else  than  one  of  those  Metrical  Psalms  or  Hymns  is  sung. 
Where,  then,  is  the  fault  1  Let  it  be  marked  that  the  Bubric 
authorizing  either  a  Psalm  or  Hymn  says,  “  allowed  to  be  sung  in 
all  the  congregations  of  the  said  Church  before  and  after  Morning 
and  Evening  Prayer,  and  also  before  and  after  sermons.”  From 
these  words  it  is  evident  that  the  sort  and  mode  of  singing  thus 
provided  for  are  just  what  are  usual  in  the  congregation ,  and  by  the 
congregation,  after  Morning  Prayer  and  before  and  after  sermons — 
the  usual  congregational  singing  by  the  people,  in  their  usual 
places,  and  their  usual  way  of  participating  in  that  species  of 
worship. 

Bow,  it  is  vain  to  argue  that  a  Hymn  or  Psalm,  sung  by  some 
fifteen  or  twenty  persons  as  they  march  the  length  of  the  Church, 
though  the  whole  congregation  unite  with  them,  is  the  mode  of 
worship  contemplated  in  the  Bubric.  What  if  the  congregation, 
as  may  sometimes  be  the  case,  be  composed  in  the  major  part  of 
that  procession  ]  Certainly  it  is  not  the  grave,  composed,  orderly, 
unaistracted  worship  provided  for  in  the  Bubric.  It  was  unknown 
to  our  church  when  the  Bubric  was  made.  It  is  something  intend¬ 
ed  to  derive  excitement  from  the  spectacle  and  ceremonial  of  that 
procession,  and  not  merely  from  the  union  of  the  musical  expres¬ 
sion  with  devotional  thought.  Such  processional  singing  was  com¬ 
mon  in  the  Church  of  England  before  the  Beformation,  under  the 
reign  of  Popery.  It  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  the  whole  pecu¬ 
liar  character  of  a  system  which  lays  the  stress  of  its  religion  and 
power  so  much  upon  the  excitements  of  a  pompous  ceremonial. 
Such  processions  are  appointed  in  the  Rituale  Romanum.  They 
were  abolished  in  the  Church  of  England,  whether  they  took  place 
outside  or  within  the  place  of  worship,  by  the  Boyal  Injunction  in 
1547,  and  the  prohibition  was  renewed  in  1559,  and  one  of  the  rea¬ 
sons  given  was,  that  the  people  “  may  the  more  quietly  hear  that 
which  is  said  or  sung  to  their  edifying .”  The  only  exception  to  this 


6 


% 

was  what  was  called  “  the  annual  perambulation  of  the  parish ;  ” 
and  Archbishop  Grindal,  in  carrying  out  the  Injunction,  directed 
that  in  that  excepted  case,  in  which  nothing  was  to  be  done  within 
the  Church,  all  the  ceremony  should  consist  of  the  Minister  saying 
certain  parts  of  Scripture  and  certain  prayers,  with  the  reading  oi 
a  homily,  but  with  the  express  provision  that  the  procession  should 
be  “without  wearing  any  surplices,  carrying  of  banners,  ...  or 
such  like  Popish  ceremonies .” — GrindaVs  Remains,  p.  141,  P.  S. 

The  revival  of  processional  singing  in  these  days,  has  arisen  en¬ 
tirely  out  of  that  discontentment  with  the  old  ways  of  our  Litur¬ 
gical  and  Protestant  worship,  as  established  in  theiawsand  usages 
of  all  the  centuries  since  the  Reformation,  and  out  of  that  morbid 
coveting  of  increased  ceremonial,  of  which  the  extreme  Ritualism 
of  these  days,  in  England  and  in  certain  places  this  side  the  sea, 
is  the  notorious  manifestation.  Such  an  innovation  upon  the 
established  order  of  our  worship,  such  a  disturbance,  I  may  better 
say,  could  not  have  been  anticipated  by  the  framers  of  our  Ameri¬ 
can  Prayer  Book.  But  a  few  years  ago,  before  the  ritualistic 
atmosphere  reached  its  present  temperature,  no  Episcopal  clergy¬ 
man  would  have  ventured  to  counsel  its  introduction.  If  such 
processional  singing  be  lawful  before  the  Morning  Prayer,  it  is  just 
as  lawful  after  it  and  before  the  sermon,  or  whenever  a  psalm  or 
hymn  is  sung  in  the  congregation.  If,  on  the  other  band,  it  would 
be  unlawful  before  the  sermon,  it  is  unlawful  before  the  service. 

3.  The  procession  in  surplices.  In  Canon  3,  Title  I.,  §  2,  on 
Candidates  for  Orders  officiating  as  Lay  Readers,  it  is  enacted  that 
a  candidate,  licensed  by  the  Bishop  to  officiate  as  lay  reader,  “ shall 
not  assume  the  dress  appropriate  to  clergymen  ministering  in  the  con¬ 
gregation."  From  this  it  appears  that  there  is  a  dress  recognized 
in  our  laws  as  “  appropriate  to  clergymen  ministering  in  the  congre¬ 
gation  which  means,  of  course,  a  dress  distinctive  of  the  office  of 
clergymen,  so  officiating.  And  it  appears  also  that  laymeu,  though 
Candidates  for  Orders,  and  officiating  in  the  service  under  the 
Bishop’s  license,  are  forbidden  the  use  of  such  dress,  on  the  ground 
that,  being  the  distinctive  dress  of  clergymen,  it  is  not  appropriate 
to  laymen.  In  Canon  X.  of  this  Diocese,  on  the  subject  of  Lay 
Readers,  it  is  required  that,  before  any  one  shall  be  authorized  to 
officiate  as  a  lay  reader,  he  shall  be  licensed  by  the  Bishop,  and 
shall  in  all  cases  comply  with  the  requisition  of  the  Canon  of  the 
General  Convention,  just  quoted,  as  to  not  wearing  the  dress  appro¬ 
priate  to  clergymen. 

Thus  it  appears,  that,  though  a  layman  be  a  Candidate  for  Orders, 
and  perhaps  within  a  week  of  becoming  a  clergyman,  and  though 
he  has  received  the  license  of  the  Bishop  to  conduct  the  service  of 
the  Church,  he  must  not  put  on  the  surplice  (for  that,  of  course,  is 
the  dress  referred  to),  and  for  the  single  reason  that,  being  not  a 
clergyman,  that  dress  is  not  proper  for  him. 

The  history  of  the  Canon  of  the  General  Convention  makes  the 
prohibition  still  more  impressive.  The  first  legislation  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  was  in  the  General  Convention  of  1804.  The  Canon,  then 
enacted,  left  it  to  the  Bishop  to  confine  the  Candidate  for  Orders, 


/ 


7 


officiating  as  a  lay  reader,  “to  such  dress  and  such  stations  in  the 
Church  as  are  appropriate  only  to  lay  readers .”  Non-conformity  on 
the  part  of  the  candidate  was  made  “in  all  cases  a  disqualification 
for  Orders.”  In  1808  we  find  the  Canon  amended.  Instead  of 
leaving  the  dress  and  stations  in  the  Church  to  the  prescription  of 
the  Bishops  of  the  several  Dioceses,  thus  giving  room  for  a  diver¬ 
sity  of  practice,  the  Canon  was  altered  to  read:  “He  shall  not  use 
the  dress  nor  the  stations  which  are  appropriate  to  clergymen."  •  Be¬ 
fore,  you  will  observe,  the  words  were:  “It  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  Bishop  to  confine  every  such  candidate  to  such  dress  and  such 
stations  as  are  appropriate  only  to  lay  readers .”  But  that  was  felt 
to  be  too  indeterminate ;  for  what  was  “  the  dress  appropriate  only 
to  lay  readers'?”  The  amendment  expressed  the  intention  more 
precisely.  Taking  the  matter  out  of  the  hands  of  the  several 
Bishops,  and  prescribing  a  law  for  all  the  Dioceses  alike,  it  said, 
“  he  shall  not  use  the  dress  nor  the  stations  which  are  appropriate  to 
clergymen  ministering  in  the  congregation .”  The  disqualification  for 
Orders,  in  case  of  non-compliance,  was  continued. 

Dr.  Hawks,  in  his  work  on  the  Canon  Law  of  our  Church,  says : 
“The  object  of  the  amendment,  in  making  the  prohibition  of  gen¬ 
eral  application,  was  uniformity ;  and  it  was  the  result  of  a  case  of 
a  candidate  having  officiated  in  the  surplice  and  gown  at  the  sug¬ 
gestion  of  a  member  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  his  Diocese, 
who,  before  signing  his  testimonials  for  Orders,  was  desirous  of 
ascertaining  his  ability  in  conducting  the  Church  service,  he  (the 
candidate)  having  been  a  Unitarian  Minister.” 

In  1822,  we  find  the  severe  penalty  of  non-compliance  omitted, 
but  the  prohibition  continued  as  before;  and  so  it  has  continued 
to  this  time.  Thus  is  illustrated  the  more  clearly  the  ground  of  the 
prohibition,  namely,  that  the  surplice,  being  a  distinctive  dress  of 
the  officiating  clergy,  is  in  no  case  proper  for  laymen,  even  though 
they  be  licensed  to  conduct  the  public  worship  of  the  congrega¬ 
tion.  What,  then,  shall  be  said  of  the  propriety  of  a  company  of 
boys  and  men,  whose  only  distinction  from  the  rest  of  the  congre¬ 
gation  is,  that  they  lead  the  singing  of  the  congregation,  being  ar¬ 
rayed  in  the  dress  pronounced  in  our  laws  to  be  so  the  appropriate 
dress  of  clergymen  ministering  in  the  congregation,  that  for  any 
licensed  lay  reader  to  assume  it  would  be  considered  a  palpable 
impropriety  and  illegality,  and  for  many  years  of  our  legislation 
would  have  disqualified  a  Candidate  for  Orders  from  being  received 
to  the  ministry'?  Has  a  layman,  merely  because,  under  the  Bee- 
tor’s  sanction,  he  leads  in  the  singing,  a  privilege  in  that  respect 
which  is  forbidden  to  one  who  leads  in  the  whole  worship,  under 
the  license  of  the  Bishop1?  What  makes  the  clergyman’s  dress  ap¬ 
propriate  to  a  singing  boy,  while  it  is  inappropriate  to  any  man  or 
woman  of  the  congregation  who  takes  part  in  the  singing'?  If  it  be 
that  the  boy  is  appointed  to  a  particular  function  in  that  part  of  the 
worship,  why  not  then  a  surpliced  organist,  and  why  not  surpliced 
church  wardens,  especially  when  ministering  in  the  congregation, 
as  receivers  of  the  alms  and  oblations  of  the  communicants] 

But  here  let  it  be  supposed  that,  with  regard  to  this  lay  use  of  the 


8 


dress  appropriate  to  clergymen,  as  well  as  to  the  processional  sing¬ 
ing  of  those  so  vested,  there  is  no  written  prohibition,  direct  or 
implied.  It  does  not  follow  that  either  of  them  is  lawful  in  our 
American  Episcopal  Church.  The  position  that  whatever  is  not  ex¬ 
pressly  prohibited  is  lawful — a  position  taken  by  some  who,  in  these 
days  are  thirsting  after  the  introduction  of  Ritualistic  novelties  into 
our  public  worship — is  wholly  untenable,  and,  in  its  consistent  ap¬ 
plication  and  results,  would  be  destructive  of  all  order  and  unifor¬ 
mity  in  a  church,  of  which  one  of  the  most  cherished  excellencies 
is,  that  her  prayer  is  Common  Prayer — common  not  only  to  all  that 
attend  in  the  same  house  of  worship,  but  to  all  the  church,  wher¬ 
ever  the  people  worship;  so  that  every  one  of  them  shall  be  at 
home  in  the  worship  of  every  congregation  he  may  happen  to  meet 
with — no  novelties  to  disturb  his  peace  of  mind  when  he  enters  the 
house  of  God,  and  dislocate  his  cherished  conformity  to  the  order 
of  divine  worship  as  he  has  learned  it  from  the  Prayer  Book. 

In  answer  to  that  precise  claim,  that  whatever  is  not  prohibited 
is  lawful,  applied,  by  English  Ritualists  of  the  present  extravagant 
sort,  to  practices  in  use  before  the  Reformation  and  not  since  for¬ 
mally  prohibited,  the  Address  to  the  Clergy  of  their  respective 
Eioceses,  drawn  up  in  1851,  and  signed  by  twenty-four  Archbishops 
and  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England,  says:  “  We  believe  that  at 
the  Reformation,  the  English  Church  not  only  rejected  certain  cor¬ 
ruptions,  but  intended  to  establish  one  uniform  ritual,  according 
to  which  her  public  services  should  be  conducted.  But  it  is  mani¬ 
fest  that  a  license,  such  as  is  contended  for,  is  wholly  incompatible 
with  any  uniformity  whatsoever,  and  at  variance  with  the  universal 
practice  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  has  never  given  to  the  offi¬ 
ciating  ministers  of  separate  congregations  any  such  large  discre¬ 
tion  in  the  selection  of  ritual  observances.”  These  words  are  as 
true  in  principle  for  our  Church  as  for  that  of  England. 

The  present  Bishop  of  Exeter,  venerable  in  his  extreme  old  age, 
and  one  whose  general  relation  to  the  controversies  of  these  times 
gives  special  weight  to  his  views  on  such  a  question,  in  delivering 
his  mind,  in  the  way  of  rebuke  to  a  clergyman  for  placing  the  image 
of  the  cross  on  the  communion  table,  pronounced  the  same  princi¬ 
ple,  with  more  amplification:  “  Would  it  be  lawful,”  he  said,  “for 
any  persons  whomsoever  to  deck  the  Lord’s  table,  in  preparation 
for  the  Holy  Communion,  with  vases  containing  flowers,  and  with 
a  cross  placed  on  the  table  %  Certainly  not ,  unless  there  be  an  ex¬ 
press  or  implied  direction  so  to  do.  Tiie  very  nature  of  the  case — 
the  general  requisition  of  uniformity — alike  leads  to  the  same  con¬ 
clusion,  that  it  is  not  lawful  lor  any  person  whomsoever  to  introduce 
novel  ornament  at  his  own  discretion.  In  truth,  where  would  the 
claim  of  such  discretion  end  ?  If  one  person  may  at  his  pleasure 
decorate  the  Lord’s  table  with  a  cross,  another  may  equally  claim 
to  set  a  crucifix  upon  it,  whilst  a  third  may  think  it  necessary  to 
erect  some  symbol  of  Puritan  doctrine  or  feeling,  to  mark  his  repro¬ 
bation  of  his  Romanizing  neighbors.” 

The  principle  thus  expressed,  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  person 
whomsoever  to  introduce  novel  ornaments  at  his  own  discretion,  is 


9 


equally  applicable  to  novel  ceremonies ,  and  applies  as  well  to  a  sur- 
pliced  processional  introduction  to  our  Morning  Prayer  in  the 
American  Church,  as  to  a  cross  ou  the  communion  table  in  the 
Church  of  England.  But  there  is  law  in  long  established  and  unvar¬ 
ied  usage ,  which  demands  compliance,  and  that  law  forbids  these 
novelties  in  our  Church. 

Since  the  organization  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this 
country  until  the  last  very  few  years,  processional  singing  in  our 
congregations  was  never  heard  of.  It  is  still  so  very  infrequent, 
that  to  pretend  that  it  makes  any  thing  that  may  be  called  a  usage 
of  the  Church,  so  as  to  limit  in  any  degree  the  law  of  usage  derived 
from  the  universal  mode  of  our  worship  for  more  than  seventy 
years  preceding  it,  is  out  of  the  question.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
usage  of  the  Church  of  Eugland.  No  such  thing  takes  place  in  the 
Cathedral  service,  or  that  of  the  University  Chapels.  Ever  since 
the  year  1830,  I  have,  during  various  visits  to  England,  attended 
the  service  of  many  English  Cathedrals  and  of  the  chief  Univer¬ 
sity  Chapels,  and  not  only  did  I  never  witness  processional  singing 
therein,  but  I  have  no  knowledge,  to  this  day,  that  it  obtains  in  any 
of  them.  As  to  parish  churches,  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  has  ob¬ 
tained  a  place  in  a  few — so  few,  however,  that  to  call  it  a  usage  is 
simply  preposterous;  and  what  there  is  of  it  has  come  in  within  a 
very  few  years,  and  as  the  offspring  of  precisely  that  school  of 
Tractarian  Ritualism  which  has  been  so  long  desiring  to  draw 
nearer  the  Church  of  Rome  in  these  things,  and  of  late  has  ven¬ 
tured  to  appear  in  so  many  other  offensive  conformities  to  her 
sacerdotal  ceremonial. 

Besides  processional  singing,  the  wearing  of  the  surplice  by  any 
but  Clergymen  is  equally  a  novel  innovation  on  the  usages  of  our 
American  Church.  It  is  so  also  in  the  Parish  Churches  of  Eng¬ 
land,  except  the  very  few  into  which  a  contrary  practice  has  of  late 
been  introduced,  under  the  same  craving  for  what  is  called  a  higher 
ceremonial,  that  has  given  birth  to  processional  singing.  I  am  well 
aware  that  choristers  in  Cathedrals  and  in  some  University  Chapels 
are  vested  in  surplices :  by  what  authority  I  do  not  know.  But  the 
fact  that,  until  within  a  few  years  of  growing  Ritualism,  the  prac¬ 
tice  was  confined  to  such  places,  and  was  kept  out  of  the  Parish 
Churches,  shows  how  little  the  usage,  if  it  may  be  so  called,  is  ap¬ 
plicable  to  our  Churches.  It  is  a  very  new  novelty  among  us,  and 
as  yet  has  very  little  following,  whatever  it  may  seek  and  hope  for, 
and  however  we  may  have  reason  to  fear  it  will  be  extended  unless 
timely  measures  be  taken  to  check  its  growth.  The  contrary  usage 
is  too  universal  and  too  long  established  to  be  in  the  least  affected 
in  point  of  authority  by  any  practice  so  infantile  in  age  and  so  lim¬ 
ited  in  extent,  and  is  a  law  in  our  Church,  if  ever  there  was  a  usage 
which  deserved  that  name.  It  is  pertinent  here  to  call  to  mind 
that  the  Declaration  signed  by  twenty-eight  of  our  Bishops,  and 
moved  in  the  meeting  of  the  House  of  Bishops  assembled  in  New 
York  in  October,  1800 — a  declaration  occasioned  by  the  alarming 
efforts  of  extreme  Ritualism,  and  in  which,  referring  to  the  idea 
that  we  in  this  Church  are  subject  in  any  degree  to  the  laws  or 


10 


usages  of  the  Church  of  England,  it  was  emphatically  declared 
that  our  Church  was  duly  organized  as  “  a  particular  and  National 
Church,” — in  that  paper,  I  say,  it  was  declared  that  because  it  is 
thus  a  National  Church,  “  no  laws  of  the  Church  of  England  have 
any  force  of  law  in  this  Church,  such  as  can  be  justly  cited  in  de¬ 
fense  of  any  departure  from  the  express  law  of  this  Church,  its 
liturgy,  its  discipline,  rites,  and  usages ;”  and  further,  that  “no 
strange  or  foreign  usages  should  be  introduced  or  sanctioned  by 
the  private  judgment  of  any  member  or  members  of  this  Church, 
clerical  or  lay and  furthermore,  that  in  the  censures  of  that  De¬ 
claration  it  was  the  intention  of  the  signers  “  to  include  all  depart¬ 
ures  from  the  laws,  rubrics,  and  settled  order  of  this  Church .”  That 
a  surpliced  processional  singing  at  the  opening  of  Morning  Prayer 
is  a  departure  from  “the  settled  order  of  this  Church,”  it  is  impos¬ 
sible  to  deny,  unless  some  other  meaning  be  found  to  the  words 
“  settled  order  ”  than  is  known  to  us. 

This  is  no  matter  of  mere  technical  importance.  Our  people  have 
been  trained  and  habituated,  in  the  venerable  usages  of  their  Church, 
to  a  certain  uniform,  well  regulated,  dignified,  grave  and  solemn 
method  of  commencing  the  public  worship  of  God,  as  well  as  to 
seeing  the  garment  appropriated  to  the  Clergy  when  ministering 
in  the  congregation,  confined  to  the  Clergy ;  and  they  are  offended, 
and  reasonably  offended,  in  their  most  sacred  associations,  and 
painfully  disturbed  in  their  most  solemn  devotions,  by  witnessing 
the  novelties  of  which  we  have  been  speaking. 

The  Address  of  the  twenty-four  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  the 
Church  of  England,  to  which  I  have  before  referred,  lays  down 
certain  principles  which,  in  their  view,  should  limit  changes  in 
ritual  matters  not  otherwise  regulated.  One  is,  that  “  any  change 
which  suggests  the  fear  ot  still  further  alterations,  is  most  injuri¬ 
ous.”  The  principle  is  wise,  whencesoever  it  come.  That  particular 
change  of  which  we  have  been  speaking,  comes  under  its  applica¬ 
tion.  It  does  decidedly  prepare  the  way  for  further  changes,  as  is 
evidenced  in  the  particular  case  before  us,  which  began  with  pro¬ 
cessional  singing  at  the  opening  of  divine  service.  In  a  very  short 
time  it  has  grown  to  processional  singing  at  the  termination  of 
divine  service.  It  began  with  the  request  to  the  congregation  to 
rise  as  the  procession  enters,  and  continue  standing  till  it  reaches 
the  chancel.  It  has  now  the  additional  expectation  that  the  con¬ 
gregation  will  stand  till  the  procession,  in  its  going  out,  singing  as 
it  goes,  shall  have  reached  the  door.  Well,  a  plain  old-fashioned 
Episcopalian  may  reasonably  ask,  What  next'?  If  so  much  already, 
how  much  more'?  If  individual  discretion  has  made  such  a  breach 
already  in  the  defensive  usages  and  order  of  our  worship,  what  is 
to  hinder  its  going  a  great  deal  further  among  us  in  this  Diocese, 
just  as  we  know  such  beginnings  have  increased  in  some  other 
dioceses  of  our  American  Church,  and  in  certain  parts  of  the  Church 
of  England,  bringing  in  that  whole  retinue  of  ritualistic  restoration 
of  Romish  superstitions,  which  have  so  deformed  and  dishonored 
the  worship  of  our  Cburcb,  that  in  certain  places  our  venerable 
Liturgy  can  hardly  be  recognized  in  the  foppish  masquerade  with 
which  it  is  accompanied  ? 


11 


In  the  Report  of  a  Committee  of  the  Archiepiscopal  Proviuce  of 
Canterbury,  on  Ritualism,  in  1866,  the  principle  is  laid  down,  as 
true  for  us  as  for  them,  that  “  every  congregation  of  Christ’s  dock, 
being  in  itself  a  member  of  the  general  congregation,  is  bound  to 
consider  not  only  what  may  be  most  edifying  to  itself,  but  what 
may  be  most  conducive  to  the  peace  and  influence  of  the  whole 
National  Church.”  We  are  not  Congregationalists.  It  is  uot, 
even  in  things  left  in  a  measure  unregulated,  the  right  of  any  one 
congregation  to  consider  exclusively  what  will  please  itself.  The 
feelings  and  usages  and  habits  of  their  brethren  in  the  whole  com¬ 
munion  have  a  right  to  be  considered,  before  any  serious  innovation 
*  is  made  in  the  mode  of  their  common  worship. 

In  this  connection  I  may  say,  without  hesitation,  that  the  novelty 
in  question  is  offensive  to  hundreds  of  our  people,  where  it  may  be 
pleasing  to  one.  It  seriously  dishonors  our  Church  as  one  of  order, 
of  law,  of  uniformity,  of  gravity,  of  simplicity ;  a  Church  protected 
in  her  worship,  as  we  have  been  accustomed  to  boast,  against  the 
individual  caprice,  or  taste,  or  whim,  or  fancy,  or  infirmity  of  the 
particular  Minister,  or  any  leading  induence  in  the  congregation. 
It  hedges  up  the  way  of  our  progress  where  we  want  to  obtain  the 
conddence  of  the  people  in  order  to  draw  them  to  our  Ministry. 
It  plants  suspicions,  prejudices,  distrust,  aversion,  which  it  will 
take  many  years  of  better  doing  to  eradicate,  but  of  which  we  have 
no  reason  to  complain  while  such  innovations  of  individual  discre¬ 
tion  shall  have  place. 

Do  not  think,  my  brethren,  that  I  am  making  too  much  of  this 
matter  in  thus  enlarging  upon  it.  There  is  wisdom  in  takiug  such 
things  at  the  beginning.  An  opening  in  the  sea-dyke,  which  at 
drst  might  be  stopped  with  a  man’s  huger,  by  delay  lets  in  the 
hood.  How  much  easier  would  it  have  been  to  restrain  the  evils 
which  are  now  causing  such  apprehensions  in  the  Church  of  England, 
had  the  day  of  apparently  “  small  things  ”  been  more  respected.  In 
the  year  1846 — when  the  present  growth  of  the  doctrine  of  a  sacri- 
ficial,  propitiatory  offering  in  the  Lord’s  Supper,  and  of  a  sacrificial, 
propitiatory  Priesthood  in  the  Christian  Ministry,  and  of  a  sacrifi- 
cial  altar  for  its  ministrations,  with  its  zealous  substitution  of  an 
altar  for  the  communion  table,  as  well  in  fact  as  in  word,  was  yet 
comparatively  in  the  bud — I  saw  what  was  coming  (and  it  required 
no  prophetic  eye  to  see  it),  and  I  took  ground  against  that  Roman¬ 
izing,  as  in  other  ways,  so  especially  in  the  declaration  that  I  would 
not  consecrate  a  Church  having  an  altar-form  structure  for  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  instead  of  a  communion  table,  properly  so-called.  It  was 
intended  as  my  standing  protest  against  the  whole  Romanistic 
claim  of  sacrifice,  priest  and  altar,  which  since  has  come  in  like  a 
flood.  I  have  borne  much  ridicule  for  my  so-called  weakness  and 
folly.  I  have  persevered,  and  am  satisfied  with  the  vindication 
which  the  present  ritualistic  revival,  the  whole  of  which  centers 
around  and  is  for  the  stronger  establishment  of  that  very  claim,  is 
continually  furnishing.  And  it  is  worth  noting,  that  precisely 
where  was  erected  that  altar-form  instead  of  a  table,  which  gave 
occasion  to  that  declaration,  has  appeared  the  innovation  which 


12 


gives  occasion  to  the  present  remarks.  There  was  a  doctrine  in¬ 
volved  in  that  substitution  of  form  ;  and  there  is  a  doctrine  involved 
in  thi>  surpliced  ceremonial ;  though  I  have  no  thought  of  imputing 
any  doctrinal  connection  in  either  instance  to  the  intentions  of  those 
who  instituted  it.  And  it  is  that  doctrinal  connection  which  makes 
me  the  more  earnest  in  the  present  matter;  and  exactly  the  same 
doctrine  is  involved  as  in  that  former  instance  of  the  substitution 
of  the  form  of  an  altar  for  that  of  a  table.  Allow  me  to  explain: 

Suppose  the  practice  of  vesting  choristers  in  surplices  should 
become  common  in  our  parishes — and  if  one  may  do  it,  all  may — then, 
of  course,  the  distinctiveness  of  that  garment,  as  appropriated  to 
the  clergy  in  their  ministrations,  is  gone.  It  no  more  designates 
the  clergyman  than  the  layman.  But  can  you  suppose  that  those 
clergymen  in  this  country,  or  in  England,  who  make  the  office  of 
the  Christian  minister,  in  its  distinctive  character,  to  be  that  of  a 
sacrificial  priest,  serving  in  actual  propitiatory  sacrifice  as  a  media¬ 
tor  between  the  sinner  and  his  judge,  and  who,  therefore,  regard 
their  office  as  one  of  such  mysterious  sacredness  and  spiritual 
power,  that  between  it  and  the  congregation  for  whom  they  offer 
there  is  a  wide  and  solemn  separation,  to  indicate  which  they  covet 
the  symbolism  of  separating  bars  and  gates — do  you  suppose  that 
they  will  be  satisfied  with  no  vestment  distinctive  of  their  office, 
any  more  than  they  are  satisfied  without  a  holy  place  and  a  holy 
altar  distinctive  of  their  office  ?  Do  you  suppose  they  will  not  be 
aspiring  after  a  priestly  robe,  as  well  as  a  priestly  ritual  ?  Will 
they  be  long  content  that  they  who  offer  the  sacrifice  shall  be  vested 
no  more  in  accordance  with  their  awful  dignity  than  the  boy  that 
sings  outside  the  rail  of  the  holy  place  ?  Of  course  not.  The  sur¬ 
plice  is  good  enough  for  ministers  who  deny  that  they  are  sacri¬ 
ficing  priests,  to  whose  ministrations  the  communication  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  with  all-saving  grace  to  sinners  is  re¬ 
stricted.  It  is  good  enough,  with  some  additional  garb  at  times, 
even  for  themselves,  in  the  reading  of  prayers  and  the  preaching 
of  the  pulpit ;  but  a  garment  distinctive  of  their  ministration  as 
priests  (which  the  surplice  is  not)  they  must  have,  and  they  will 
get,  by  adopting  the  garment  of  that  priesthood  which  in  other 
things  they  are  so  fond  of  imitating. 

Now,  is  all  this  mere  predictive  theory?  No.  It  is  simply  the 
recital  of  what  has  taken  place  already,  and  of  what  has  already 
been,  in  print,  foreshadowed  in  this  country.  The  report  of  the 
Royal  Commission  on  Ritual,  appointed  by  the  Crown  to  investi¬ 
gate  the  practices  and  doctrines  of  the  English  Ritual,  brings  out 
strongly  what  I  wish  you  to  notice.  One  of  the  clergymen  exam¬ 
ined  was  asked :  “  Do  you  consider  yourself  a  sacrificing  priest?  ” 

“  Yes,  distinctly  so.”  “  Tkeu  you  think  you  offer  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice?”  “Yes,  I  think  I  do  offer  a  propitiatory  sacrifice” — p. 
72.  “  Do  you  use  the  surplice?  ”  “  We  use  the  surplice  always  in 
the  matins  and  even  song,  and  at  all  times  except  during  the  Holy 
Communion.  At  the  Holy  Communion  we  use  the  vestments .”  “  Will 
you  describe  them  ?  ”  “  The  chasuble,  dalmatic  and  tuuicle.”  “  Do 

you  use  those  vestments  at  any  other  time?”  “  No,  we  never  use 


13 


them  except  at  that  time” — p.  70.  “  Is  there  any  mysterious  sig¬ 

nification  in  the  chasuble  or  in  wearing  it"?”  “I  think  there  is  a 
doctrine  involved  in  the  using  of  it.”  “What  is  that  doctrine?” 
“  The  doctrine  of  the  sacrifice .” — p.  72.  To  another  of  these  clergy¬ 
men  :  “  Is  the  surplice  ever  used  beneath?  ”  “ Not  at  celebration 

Let  it  be  marked  that  when  these  men  speak  of  “  vestments ,”  in  the 
Ritual  sense,  they  do  not  include  the  surplice.  There  is  nothing 
distinctive,  in  that,  of  their  sacrificial  priesthood,  as  appears  in  the 
answer  to  the  following  question:  “  What  doctrine  or  meaning  do 
you  attach  to  the  vestments?  ”  Answer — “  The  vestments  I  take 
to  mean  a  distinctive  dress  for  the  priest  at  the  time  of  celebrating 
the  Holy  Communion.”  Question — “What  doctrine  do  they  imply?” 
“  I  should  certainly  think  the  use  of  the  chasuble  would  imply  the 
belief  in  the  doctrine  of  sacrifice  —  Eucharistic  sacrifice  —  that  being 
the  object  of  a  distinctive  dress”  “  Will  you  explain  what  you  mean 
by  that,  for  I  do  not  quite  understand  how  you  connect  that  with 
the  sacrifice?”  Answer — “It  has  been  thought  that  the  priest 
offering  this  sacrifice  at  the  Holy  Communion  should  have  a  dis¬ 
tinctive  dress  to  mark  him  off  from  the  rest  of  the  ministers  as 
being  the  principal  priest  in  office,  offering  the  sacrifice  at  the 
time.” 

And  all  this  from  so-called  Protestant  ministers!!  Alas!  alas! 
But  you  see  the  process.  First,  the  taking  away  from  the  surplice 
all  distinctiveness  as  a  vestment  indicating  the  clergyman’s  peculiar 
function ;  then,  the  necessity  felt  of  having  some  distinctive  vest¬ 
ment;  next,  inasmuch  as  in  their  view  the  peculiarity  of  the  function 
is  the  offering  of  sacrifice,  comes  the  adoption  of  that  very  vestment 
which  in  the  Church  of  Rome  is  the  priest’s  distinctively  symboli¬ 
cal  robe  when  he  officiates  in  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass. 

I  think,  brethren,  I  need  not  say  any  more  to  show  that  the  ques¬ 
tion  whether  the  surplice  among  us  shall  lose  its  distinctive  appro¬ 
priateness  to  our  ministry,  by  being  made  as  well  the  garment  for 
the  chorister  as  of  the  officiating  clergyman,  has  an  important 
doctrinal  importance  which  may  conciliate  your  forgiveness  for  my 
having  so  long  occupied  your  attention  with  this  subject. 

Ah  !  brethren,  these  are  not  times  for  suddeu  changes  of  raiment, 
any  more  than  for  other  changes  in  the  exterpalism  of  our  Church. 
There  is  an  epidemic  abroad.  Our  34th  Article  says  that  “  every 
particular  or  national  Church  hath  authority  to  ordain,  change  and 
abolish  Ceremonies  or  Rites  of  the  Church,  ordained  only  on  man’s 
authority,  so  that  all  things  be  done  to  edifying.”  Let  us  be  con¬ 
tent  to  leave  all  such  changes  in  such  hands.  Individual  choice  or 
preference  has  no  authority  here.  The  more  the  spirit  of  innova¬ 
tion  upon  the  ritual  of  our  Church  shall  increase,  the  more  let  us 
hold  fast  to  what  we  have  so  much  loved  and  that  has  served  us  so 
well  in  the  past.  We  have  Rites  and  Ceremonies  in  our  Church  as 
bequeathed  to  us  from  our  fathers  and  decreed  to  us  by  their  enact¬ 
ments.  We  want  no  more.  Especially  do  we  want  none  out  of 
the  list  of  those  rejected  by  our  martyred  Reformers  in  the  great 
Protestant  Reformation.  Let  the  clergy  and  the  laity  see  to  it  that 
by  any  but  Church  authority  we  get  no  more. 


14 


And  now  I  have  finished  what  I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  say  on 
this  subject.  I  think  you  will  bear  me  witness,  that  I  have  avoided 
•entirely  all  reflection  upon  the  spirit  and  intentions  and  motives  of 
those  our  brethren  whose  practice  has  given  occasion  to  its  intro¬ 
duction. 

And  now  there  is  another  matter  for  a  few  words.  I  think  that 
while  I  was  showing  that  the  only  lawful  beginning  of  our  public 
worship  is  by  the  reading  of  one  or  more  of  the  sentences,  except 
we  choose  to  precede  them  by  a  Psalm  or  Hymn,  taken  from  those 
set  forth  in  the  Prayer  Book,  it  must  have  occurred  to  some  to  say 
to  themselves — how,  then,  can  the  practice,  (I  am  sorry  to  say,  so 
common  in  some  parts,)  of  the  choir  singing  something,  very  often 
we  know  not  what,  before  the  minister  begins  with  the  reading  of 
the  sentences,  be  justified?  I  believe  it  cannot  be  justified  in  the 
face  of  the  laws  of  our  Church  or  its  usages,  and  I  exceedingly 
wish  it  were  everywhere  abandoned,  as  very  uuedifying,  often  very 
annoying,  and  always  out  of  order. 

I  ask  you  to  consider :  It  is  to  be  regarded  either  as  an  act  of 
worship,  or  as  a  mere  matter  of  musical  entertainment  and  display. 
If  we  say  it  is  intended  for  worship,  then  of  course  it  is  intended 
for  the  worship  of  the  whole  congregation.  But  the  Rubrics  re¬ 
quire  that  that  worship  shall  begin  with  the  Sentences,  or  else 
with  a  Psalm  or  Hymn  out  of  the  Prayer  Book,  “  at  the  discretion 
of  the  minister,”  and  not  of  the  choir ;  and  that  Psalm  or  Hymn 
to  be  so  given  out  in  the  usual  way,  that  the  congregation  may 
unite  in  it  in  the  usual  way.  Now,  we  all  know  that  the  singing 
in  question,  instead  of  that,  is  never  of  one  of  these  metrical 
Psalms  or  Hymns,  whatever  else  it  may  be.  Then,  as  a  matter  of 
worship,  it  is  at  once  ruled  out. 

But  I  think  that  most  generally  it  is  regarded,  neither  by  the 
choir  or  the  congregation,  as  an  act  of  worship.  What  is  it,  then  ? 
WI137,  at  best,  it  is  generally  regarded  as  a  mere  matter  of  orches¬ 
tral  exhibition  and  musical  entertainment;  the  words  sung  being 
chosen  without  reference  to  any  supervising  authority  of  the  min¬ 
ister,  often  wholly  unknown  to  the  congregation,  and  undistinguish- 
able  by  the  most  attentive  listener.  Now,  I  simply  ask,  is  that  a 
fit  prelude  to  our  public  worship?  If  the  minister  is  not  allowed 
to  introduce  any  act  of  worship  before  the  Sentences,  except  it  be 
in  the  singing  of  one  of  the  authorized  metrical  Psalms  or  Hymns, 
no  matter  how  devotional  his  selection  might  be,  how  is  it  that  you 
can  justify  a  choir  in  introducing  at  that  very  time  whatever  they 
may  choose,  and  that  not  for  worship,  but  for  mere  musical  exhibi¬ 
tion  or  entertainment  ?  It  seems  to  me  that  it  needs  but  a  moment’s 
consideration  in  this  light  to  see  that  it  cannot  be  justified,  either 
by  the  laws  of  our  Church,  or  consistently  with  the  dignity,  gravity 
or  security  of  our  public  worship.  It  will  be  a  good  deliverauce 
when  it  shall  be  entirely  excluded,  no  matter  how  good  the  music 
could  the  congregation  unite  in  it,  or  appropriate  the  words,  sup¬ 
posing  they  could  be  distinguished.  What  performance  of  a  choir, 
before  the  minister  begins  the  Morning  Prayer,  is  comparable  to 


15 


the  silence  ot  the  congregation  as  devout  minds,  endeavor  to  col¬ 
lect  their  thoughts  and  wait  the  voice  of  the  minister,  saying : 
“The  Lord  is  in  His  holy  temple;  let  all  the  earth  keep  silence 
before  Him.” — “  Let  the  words  of  my  mouth  and  the  meditation 
of  my  heart  be  always  acceptable  in  thy  sight,  O  Lord,  my  Strength 
and  my  Eedeemer.”  I  earnestly  wish  we  never  had  any  other 
beginning. 

[The  above  portion  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine’s  Address  was  referred  to  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Canons,  who  subsequently  presented  the  following  report,  which  was 
unanimously  adopted:] 

REPORT. 

The  Committee  on  Canons,  to  whom  was  referred  the  following  resolution : 

Besolved,  That  so  much  of  the  Bishop’s  Address  as  relates  to  Deviations  from 
the  usages  and  order  of  our  Worship  in  this  Diocese  he  referred  to  the  Commit¬ 
tee  on  Canons,  to  consider  whether  any  Canon  or  resolution  on  such  subject  is 
desirable — 


Beg  leave  respectfully  to  report :  The  committee  believe  that  the  general  and 
almost  universal  sentiment  of  both  clergy  and  laity  of  this  Diocese  is  against 
the  introduction  of  novelties  of  any  kind  into  the  solemn  Services  of  our  Church. 
No  individual  has  any  right  to  substitute  his  own  taste  or  caprice  in  the  place 
of  our  Rubrics,  Canons,  and  long-established  Usages ;  and,  undoubtedly,  if  such 
an  attempt  were  deliberately  made,  the  offender  should  be  proceeded  with  ac¬ 
cording  to  law ;  and  if  the  law,  as  it  now  stands,  is  not  adequate  to  the  emer¬ 
gency,  a  new  Canon  should  be  provided,  expressly  to  meet  such  cases.  We  do 
not,  however,  believe  that  any  violation  of  law  has  been  intended,  thus  far,  in 
what  has  occurred  in  the  Diocese;  but  the  object  in  introducing  the  novelties 
referred  to  by  the  Bishop  was,  mainly,  to  make  the  services  of  the  Church  more 
attractive  than  they  are  under  our  usual  forms.  This,  in  our  judgment,  is  wholly 
inadmissible.  Believing  that  the  public  sentiment  of  the  Diocese  will  hereafter 
be  respected  in  this  matter,  by  every  Church  within  its  limits,  we  deem  no 
further  action  necessary  at  present. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

Erastus  Burr, 

t  Samuel  Clements, 

John  W.  Andrews, 


T.  C.  Jones, 

Committee  on  Canons. 


A  true  copy  from  the  Journal  of  Convention  : 

W.  C.  French,  Secretary. 


